Hi--I amr eposting these PCnNs as i ahd some problem with the file upload previously and the thread seems to ahev gone dry as a consequence adn i would still like some help:

summary; these 2 attached PCNs 1) parking in restricted loading space 2) tax rank are from 14 months ago in the dark and snow wfrom what i can see from the very unclear cropped images.

this is after having the warrant revoked due to non-receipt of orginals.....so the question now is what to do?

1) pay, 2) request evidence, 3) appeal --i was thinking number 2 because a) i cant remember over a year ago and b) im pretty certain i have NEVER parked in harrow town ie left the car....so all i can think of is that the vehicle is moving OR i stopped to let someone off---either of which would have been momentary--seconds to minutes....

from teh images i cant even tell where exactly it happened...........am i expected to go back there and check signage, camera warnings etc? ..or can i just write to them saying image unclear, send me more evidence?

any thoughts people??

PCNS.doc

also is it odd that the penalty is £50/£100 instead of £60/£120 as specified on ahrrow website?

You have nothing to lose by appealling, if its a year ago they may be stupid enough to have lost the tape.

Not only that but you can argue that it is contrary to the central principle of fairness to expect you to remember after all this time al the relevant circumstances and therefore cannot mount an effective appeal.

thanks --i have drafted a letter to ahrrow asking for a) video cctv evidence as the pictures dont really show much and b) saying i cant be expected to mount an effective appeal given it was over a year ago--- (i've sent this as a letter though as opposed to making representations on the form-im assuming this will be ok?)i'll keep u posted on what happens ....

That seems like a good plan. I seem to remember a couple of parking tribunal cases where cases were thrown out because of inordinate delays by the councils in issuing CCTV fines.

Personally, given that it is a statutory process I think you need to use the form. Not to do so runs the risk that the LA will regard it as a failure to respond.

In your appeal I would raise the following.

1) The cctv pictures supplied to not show a contravention --which is a procedural impropriety

2) There has been an ureasonable delay from the original date of contravention to the date of enforcement (despite the orders being revoked-- it does not take 14 months to resend PCN's)

3) That you want to view the CCTV footage which you have every right to do so because of point 1

4) You want evidence that all signs and lines are correct to the TSRGD 2002 -- and if not you want all drawings together with evidence of DFT aproval.

5) You want to see a copy of the relevant traffic order for that area and all documentaion that it has been properly enabled according to the traffic orders procedures

6) You want evidence that the CCTV camera is an approved device and that there was clear signage warning motorists that serveillance is being carried out in that area and that it is not merely for the convenience of the council.

thanks nero-that's v comprehensive info. unfortunately i ahve aready written to the council making only half those points (i think its ok not on the form as it's not a formal appeal, more exerting my right torequest eveidence-i sent is by post and email and received an automated reply saying all procedings will be halted until they investigate the evidence--so hopefuly this counts as proof of the letter. in the next stage i shall certainly use bits from ur post re: asking amout the camera etc..i will keep u updated.

Another good line to remember that data protection allows you to keep eveidence such as CCTV footage only 'for as long as reasonably neccessary'

As a dual SIA licence holder in Door Supervision and CCTV, I highly doubt that they will still have the footage and even if they do you can argue that it should be disregarded as it is clearly not reasonable to hold onto evidence for this long without acting on it.

Another good line to remember that data protection allows you to keep eveidence such as CCTV footage only 'for as long as reasonably neccessary'

As a dual SIA licence holder in Door Supervision and CCTV, I highly doubt that they will still have the footage and even if they do you can argue that it should be disregarded as it is clearly not reasonable to hold onto evidence for this long without acting on it.

Absolutely. I think after 14 months they realy are chancing thier arm they have little or no evidence to back up thier claims.

They realy should bin this and stop wasting everyones time.

UPDATE--i have just had a reply to my request to view evidence---they have responded only to one PCN (even though i wrote in about 2). with this one they have sent me 3 still photographs showing car parked on double yellow over a 4 minute period-(i will post images as soon as i have access to scanner).....they have also invited me to come in and view video evidence--hard to say whether they actually have it or are calling my bluff so am tempted to request this. However if they do have this................do i have any levergae in what hhh said abut keeping evidence this long or what nero said about approved CCTV devices etc? I am tempted to write back asking for info re: camera and signs and warning etc....because while the still images do show a contravention they dont show any signage........what are ur thoughts?

please look at th attachements which show the response from harrow council and 3 still images of my vehicle--(only 1 close up in which the plate is visible but i have blacked it out)....

what do u think i should do next?

thanks

What contravention are these photos for mate, I cant quite see the letter of reply.

contravention 45: parked on a taxi rank

2nd PCN on original post...u cant actually tell that it is a taxi rank from the images..there are no signs, only double yellow half covered by snow.

also i requested evidence for both pcns and have only had this reply for one--i wonder if they forgot about the other one as i wrote in about both together?

2nd PCN on original post...u cant actually tell that it is a taxi rank from the images..there are no signs, only double yellow half covered by snow.

 

also i requested evidence for both pcns and have only had this reply for one--i wonder if they forgot about the other one as i wrote in about both together?

Deal with the taxi rank one first.

This is just for starters mate as you havnt showed all of the tickets.

Yur appeal I would advise would comprise of the following

1) proceural impropriety : they have not supplied video evidence of the contravention. there maybe exemptions for parking there in the traffic order for which your parking may have applied to. And as 14 months have elapsed you cannot reasoably remember. (template argument)

2) Procedural impropriety .14 months from the date of contravention is an unreasonable delay > I think there was a ruling for something similar to this at tribunal. Ill have a dig.

3) You want the traffic order for this area and documentation of all the components of the traffic orders procedures section 6 to 18 have been fully complied with.

You want this with a full description of how the controls have been contravened. This is a reasonable request as only the fully trained experts can decifer them.

5) You want video evidence that any of the exemption did not apply. ( you may have broken down or maybe there was an emergency >Template arguement)

6) There has been a Procedural impropriety the photos supplied do not properly show the contravention.

7)Due to the above You want evidence that the area was correctly sigend to the tsrgd 2002, where that signs are located by way of engineers drawings, and that If they happen to be no prescribed you want documentation that each sign has DFT authorisation.

8) You want evidence that the CCTV camera is an approved device by way of documentation and that there was clear signage warning motorists that serveillance is eing carried out in that area and that it is not merely for the convenience of the council.

For some reason number 8 is showing a smiley. Perhaps a snag in vbulletin LOL not to worry tho.

Can we see the rest of the PCN.

thanks nero, i will draft a letter making those points--2 points to note, in the letter i posted hch might be too small to read, they do inform me that i can come in to view video evidence and re: the 14 month lapse does that still count given i had to go through the whole stat dec procedure and then the council reissued it?

in any case i will make those points....i already made the point about not being able to mount an effective appeal given the elapsed time period in the letter where i requested evidence but they just ignored this point!

erm dont have tickets on me, can post up on monday--dont think there's much wrong with the rest though....

do u recommend i make the points about procedural improriety and request info re: camera, signs etc now whilst they are still waiting for me omake contact re: viewing the evidence?

thanks

p.s. what is DFT authorisation?

Why should you be inconvenienced to see the video. If they have it then they can send on hard copy to your address on disk. These days its not rocket science, but some idiotic authorities will have you believe otherwise. They probably dont have it.

back room staff are poorly paid and some poorly trained and run rings around you for a laugh Ref the 14 months. I reiterate , it does not take 14 months to re send a PCN. They are taking the michael.

DFT. Department for transport. They can authorise non prescribed signs.

thnks again nero....

i will write to them saying all this -also i tried to reupload the letter again but cant seem to get it better quality :

after saying i must view the evidence within days it also says the following:

"if you wish to contest the charge you should write in stating your reasons for doing so within 14 days to the date on this letter. If after 21 days this charge has not been paid, or we have not received any further correspondence from you, the case will progress and charges may increase"

hence can i get them on ANOTHER procedural impropriety in that it is not clear what happends between 14 and 21 days ie i presume the discounted fee is not longer valid after 14 days but this is really not clear from this letter????

also im supposed to view the evidence AND appeal within 14 days??! this was a cctv pcn in which orignally i had 21 days to pay discounted rate.....

so can you see any obvious incorrect procedures here??

thanks

thnks again nero....

i will write to them saying all this -also i tried to reupload the letter again but cant seem to get it better quality :

 

after saying i must view the evidence within days it also says the following:

 

"if you wish to contest the charge you should write in stating your reasons for doing so within 14 days to the date on this letter. If after 21 days this charge has not been paid, or we have not received any further correspondence from you, the case will progress and charges may increase"

 

hence can i get them on ANOTHER procedural impropriety in that it is not clear what happends between 14 and 21 days ie i presume the discounted fee is not longer valid after 14 days but this is really not clear from this letter????

 

also im supposed to view the evidence AND appeal within 14 days??! this was a cctv pcn in which orignally i had 21 days to pay discounted rate.....

 

so can you see any obvious incorrect procedures here??

 

thanks

Dont know what they are on about with the 14 day or 21 day bit,.Perhaps they are giving you a further 14 days from the date of the letter and another 21 days to pay. This maybe over and above what the PCN says. You may have a PI. Just need to see it.

Reasonable period of time - Davis v Kensington and Chelsea.

nero...here is the rest of the PCN (it's the same for both)...

any thoughts....im also about to upload the cctv images for the second pcn...again cant see much...